Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Planning Commission Minutes <br />May 22, 1990 <br /> <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />COMMISSIONER EBERLEY MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE NEXT <br />REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND TO TABLE THE DISCUSSION <br />UNTIL THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S NEXT SCHEDULED WORK SESSION SO AS TO <br />AWAIT FINAL WORD FROM MPCA AND TO AWAIT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S LEGAL <br />OPINION ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO ENTITIES TO RESOLVE SOME OF <br />THE CONCERNS THAT THE COMMISSION HAS RAISED ABOUT STANDARDS, <br />MEASUREMENT, COSTS ETC. ALSO TO DETERMINE WHO IS BEING PERMITTED BY <br />THE MPCA. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED <br />6-0. <br /> <br />Commissioner Fuchs suggested that this information be available for <br />their next work session for discussion as not to hold this item up. <br /> <br />8. Qr.dinJ!:!tc.:e' AmenrtmenU.s.imLOrdinance) by the City of Elk River/P.H. <br /> <br />Steve Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator, reviewed the changes as <br />stated in his memo dated May 1, 1990. The Planning Commission <br />discussed this and made a number of modifications to the draft sign <br />ordinance which are reflected in the current ordinance that was passed <br />on to the Council. This included everything but the outdoor advertising <br />signs. <br /> <br />Chairman Kimball opened the public hearing. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Chairman Kimball provided some background information for the <br />discussion of advertising signs. Chairman Kimball indicated the two <br />main objections against billboards are the size of the signs and the <br />number of signs. He stated that the outdoor advertising industry was <br />asked to address their concerns regarding outdoor advertising, which <br />has been received. The general consensus of the Commission and staff <br />was that the response was not adequate as far as the area of immediate <br />reduction of the signs. Chairman Kimball asked that the Planning <br />Commission not amortize billboards out of existence, but instead <br />regulate the size and number of signs. He stated that this would make <br />the existing signs nonconforming according to the ordinance. <br /> <br />There were a number of people present from the outdoor advertising <br />industry to address their concerns. Keith Franklin of Franklin Outdoor <br />Advertising stated that the State of Minnesota has set guidelines for <br />billboards on the interstate highways and state highways. He indicated <br />that the City of Elk River was at 40% of what the state allows for <br />billboards. Mr. Franklin stated that advertisers need signs large <br />enough for people to see when they're passing through. <br /> <br />James Kleinke of Franklin Outdoor Advertising stated his concerns <br />indicating that the impact would be dramatic on the City of Elk River <br />if advertisers are unable to advertise their products. He felt Elk <br />River was overlooking one aspect of the sign ordinance, the advertisers. <br /> <br />.- <br /> <br />Tim Keane, City Attorney, suggested that he would be willing to <br />tabulate and provide to staff and the Commission, the sign area, <br />spacing, and height, and other zoning restrictions of signs in other <br />communities that have adequate, but not a surplus of signage. Mr. <br />Keane stated that there is a provision in the State Statutes that if <br /> <br />e <br />